It was the hierarchy of the canonical Greek Archdiocese of North and South America (Ecumenical Patriarchate), which had a policy, several decades ago, of forbidding racially mixed marriages (this according to a priest who had written one of those "xx Questions on the Orthodox Church" books published in those days). Granted, the policy seems to have been retired or at least kept quiet, since then.

Those of you who want Br. Nathanael silenced or defrocked, are you saying that you also wish the bishops of the canonical Greek Orthodox Church in America to be silenced or defrocked?

As Michal said, yes, if the policy were ongoing. BTW, it was Fr. Stanley Harakas who wrote the "questions" book you allude to- he bases his position on the bizarre premise that God created the "races" and that we are somehow interfering with God's plan by mixing them. I hope that Fr. Stanley's position has changed since then.

Quote

The idea of a white Christian political bloc, and advocating for its strengthening, seems non-heretical and to be distinct from actual heresy. After all, if people from a group of African nations got together and said, "We want to formulate a powerful political bloc of African nations, to protect our peoples against inroads from European powers," absolutely no one would object.

When Europe is colonized and enslaved by foreign powers for a while, then your argument might start to make sense.

You are also confusing geographic and religious alliances with alliances based on race.

Some would argue that mass third world immigration is a kind of colonization, against which native people (whites, at least in Europe) have a right to organize against collectively.

It was the hierarchy of the canonical Greek Archdiocese of North and South America (Ecumenical Patriarchate), which had a policy, several decades ago, of forbidding racially mixed marriages (this according to a priest who had written one of those "xx Questions on the Orthodox Church" books published in those days). Granted, the policy seems to have been retired or at least kept quiet, since then.

Those of you who want Br. Nathanael silenced or defrocked, are you saying that you also wish the bishops of the canonical Greek Orthodox Church in America to be silenced or defrocked?

As Michal said, yes, if the policy were ongoing. BTW, it was Fr. Stanley Harakas who wrote the "questions" book you allude to- he bases his position on the bizarre premise that God created the "races" and that we are somehow interfering with God's plan by mixing them. I hope that Fr. Stanley's position has changed since then.

Quote

The idea of a white Christian political bloc, and advocating for its strengthening, seems non-heretical and to be distinct from actual heresy. After all, if people from a group of African nations got together and said, "We want to formulate a powerful political bloc of African nations, to protect our peoples against inroads from European powers," absolutely no one would object.

When Europe is colonized and enslaved by foreign powers for a while, then your argument might start to make sense.

You are also confusing geographic and religious alliances with alliances based on race.

Some would argue that mass third world immigration is a kind of colonization, against which native people (whites, at least in Europe) have a right to organize against collectively.

The Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Michael Farage, has said in a television broadcast that Britain has seen more in modern times than have come in total since the time of the Norman invasion (1066 AD). The party is both anti-EU and unfettered immigration. The problem they identity is that too many too quickly cannot be assimilated, the host community feels alienated and public services overstretched. Some point out British rule of India. But Britons in a huge sub-continent peaked in about 1922 at 21,000. Birmingham alone has over 300,000 from the sub-continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Any concerns I may have based on this notion of far too many, too quickly. I guess some in the USA may have similar worries. But I would hate the debate to be one of a fearful 'white' population feeling hatred to others on some strange and perhaps unscientific notions of race. I certainly find the images of so-called 'white supremacists' who look more as if they are intellectually and culturally a couple of biscuits short of the packet.

As an Orthodox Christian Christ's commandment to go into the world and preach the gospel to all men informs my response to all regardless of skin pigmentation, language or nationality.

There is basis, however, for the argument. This is how the Roman Empire fell. If a bunch of Germans started moving into the UK, and the Tommys got their knickers in a wad, everything would be OK. But when it is "Brown People" moving in, now the big R word enters the picture. That is why I would not oppose putting mines around our borders. A mine really does not care what color you are when you step on it.

It was the hierarchy of the canonical Greek Archdiocese of North and South America (Ecumenical Patriarchate), which had a policy, several decades ago, of forbidding racially mixed marriages (this according to a priest who had written one of those "xx Questions on the Orthodox Church" books published in those days). Granted, the policy seems to have been retired or at least kept quiet, since then.

Those of you who want Br. Nathanael silenced or defrocked, are you saying that you also wish the bishops of the canonical Greek Orthodox Church in America to be silenced or defrocked?

As Michal said, yes, if the policy were ongoing. BTW, it was Fr. Stanley Harakas who wrote the "questions" book you allude to- he bases his position on the bizarre premise that God created the "races" and that we are somehow interfering with God's plan by mixing them. I hope that Fr. Stanley's position has changed since then.

Quote

The idea of a white Christian political bloc, and advocating for its strengthening, seems non-heretical and to be distinct from actual heresy. After all, if people from a group of African nations got together and said, "We want to formulate a powerful political bloc of African nations, to protect our peoples against inroads from European powers," absolutely no one would object.

When Europe is colonized and enslaved by foreign powers for a while, then your argument might start to make sense.

You are also confusing geographic and religious alliances with alliances based on race.

Some would argue that mass third world immigration is a kind of colonization, against which native people (whites, at least in Europe) have a right to organize against collectively.

Uh...oh...

Not that I'm arguing this line.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

White nationalism is in fact stupid, but it's grasping at something which is real and which we need to pay attention to. Basically, governments have to put the interests of natives over those of foreigners; the opposite, globalist argument is that governments should sacrifice the interests of their own citizens in favor of the global good. A closely related argument is that governments should sacrifice the needs and interests of the current generation for the sake of future generations. Both are morally misguided.

The Church, on the other hand, should not make it into a racial thing. It's one thing to say Orthodox believers cannot marry non-Orthodox; it's quite another to say they can't marry non-Greeks or whatever, even if they are Orthodox.

White nationalism is in fact stupid, but it's grasping at something which is real and which we need to pay attention to. Basically, governments have to put the interests of natives over those of foreigners; the opposite, globalist argument is that governments should sacrifice the interests of their own citizens in favor of the global good. A closely related argument is that governments should sacrifice the needs and interests of the current generation for the sake of future generations. Both are morally misguided.

The Church, on the other hand, should not make it into a racial thing. It's one thing to say Orthodox believers cannot marry non-Orthodox; it's quite another to say they can't marry non-Greeks or whatever, even if they are Orthodox.

Agree completely.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

White nationalism is in fact stupid, but it's grasping at something which is real and which we need to pay attention to. Basically, governments have to put the interests of natives over those of foreigners; the opposite, globalist argument is that governments should sacrifice the interests of their own citizens in favor of the global good. A closely related argument is that governments should sacrifice the needs and interests of the current generation for the sake of future generations. Both are morally misguided.

The Church, on the other hand, should not make it into a racial thing. It's one thing to say Orthodox believers cannot marry non-Orthodox; it's quite another to say they can't marry non-Greeks or whatever, even if they are Orthodox.

Agree completely.

+2

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

White nationalism is in fact stupid, but it's grasping at something which is real and which we need to pay attention to. Basically, governments have to put the interests of natives over those of foreigners; the opposite, globalist argument is that governments should sacrifice the interests of their own citizens in favor of the global good. A closely related argument is that governments should sacrifice the needs and interests of the current generation for the sake of future generations. Both are morally misguided.

The Church, on the other hand, should not make it into a racial thing. It's one thing to say Orthodox believers cannot marry non-Orthodox; it's quite another to say they can't marry non-Greeks or whatever, even if they are Orthodox.

Agree completely.

+2

But... the development of corporate globalisation since the second world war war and the immense capital it controls and its consequent impact on public policy decision making, has had as much to with population shifts as the policy of any country's government. Consumerism is a seductive weapon, and while there is populist discontent in many nations, cultures and religions, what can realistically be done?

White nationalism is in fact stupid, but it's grasping at something which is real and which we need to pay attention to. Basically, governments have to put the interests of natives over those of foreigners; the opposite, globalist argument is that governments should sacrifice the interests of their own citizens in favor of the global good. A closely related argument is that governments should sacrifice the needs and interests of the current generation for the sake of future generations. Both are morally misguided.

The Church, on the other hand, should not make it into a racial thing. It's one thing to say Orthodox believers cannot marry non-Orthodox; it's quite another to say they can't marry non-Greeks or whatever, even if they are Orthodox.

Agree completely.

+2

But... the development of corporate globalisation since the second world war war and the immense capital it controls and its consequent impact on public policy decision making, has had as much to with population shifts as the policy of any country's government. Consumerism is a seductive weapon, and while there is populist discontent in many nations, cultures and religions, what can realistically be done?

About what--consumerism? Buy and get by on less, for starters. Or did you mean something else?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

It was the hierarchy of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America (Ecumenical Patriarchate), which had a policy, several decades ago, of forbidding racially mixed marriages (this according to a priest who had written one of those "xx Questions on the Orthodox Church" books published in those days). Granted, the policy seems to have been retired or at least kept quiet since then.

That's weird. Alexander Pushkin the leading Russian classical poet- naturally an Orthodox- was 1/4 black from Ethiopia. Besides, Russians, Ukrainians, and Georgians, are largely mixed with Asians, not to mention that the Indo-Iranian group itself is half Asian and half European.

Greeks are also mixed with Turks a lot.

I actually put that but then deleted it as giving too many examples against the stupid, alleged rule.

There is basis, however, for the argument. This is how the Roman Empire fell. If a bunch of Germans started moving into the UK, and the Tommys got their knickers in a wad, everything would be OK. But when it is "Brown People" moving in, now the big R word enters the picture. That is why I would not oppose putting mines around our borders. A mine really does not care what color you are when you step on it.

Wow that is really sick, sad and dare I say unchristian like thinking.

There is basis, however, for the argument. This is how the Roman Empire fell. If a bunch of Germans started moving into the UK, and the Tommys got their knickers in a wad, everything would be OK. But when it is "Brown People" moving in, now the big R word enters the picture. That is why I would not oppose putting mines around our borders. A mine really does not care what color you are when you step on it.

Wow that is really sick, sad and dare I say unchristian like thinking.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has recently received repeated complaints about the activities of and statements made by a certain Nathanael (Kapner), who lives on the territory of the Western American Diocese, but has no relation to it.

The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.

Profoundly saddened by the state of his soul, we call upon Nathanael (Kapner) to refrain from posting on the Internet, to a life of repentance of peace in Christ, “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

+KYRILL,Archbishop of Western America and San FranciscoSecretary of the Synod of Bishops.

July 17, 2013

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has recently received repeated complaints about the activities of and statements made by a certain Nathanael (Kapner), who lives on the territory of the Western American Diocese, but has no relation to it.

Perhaps he was active in the eastern diocese and moved to the western one, but lives in the mountains and does not belong to a parish there?

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has recently received repeated complaints about the activities of and statements made by a certain Nathanael (Kapner), who lives on the territory of the Western American Diocese, but has no relation to it.

Perhaps he was active in the eastern diocese and moved to the western one, but lives in the mountains and does not belong to a parish there?

Suspect he is more of a Lone Ranger, minus a mount or Tonto. The latter probably turned out to be spying on him and got turned away.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has recently received repeated complaints about the activities of and statements made by a certain Nathanael (Kapner), who lives on the territory of the Western American Diocese, but has no relation to it.

The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.

Profoundly saddened by the state of his soul, we call upon Nathanael (Kapner) to refrain from posting on the Internet, to a life of repentance of peace in Christ, “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

+KYRILL,Archbishop of Western America and San FranciscoSecretary of the Synod of Bishops.

July 17, 2013

Good, they really needed to do that.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

It just gets tricky. 95% of what I say isn't serious. But sometimes the purple gives the wrong idea, because I'm semi-serious. I really need to do a rainbow of about 12 different colors, depending on the intended seriousness/humor ratio of the post content. Mixed would work as well, for example...

It just gets tricky. 95% of what I say isn't serious. But sometimes the purple gives the wrong idea, because I'm semi-serious. I really need to do a rainbow of about 12 different colors, depending on the intended seriousness/humor ratio of the post content. Mixed would work as well, for example...

How 'bout this: since 95% of what you say is non-serious, why not use purple only for everything else. Then we'll know you're being non-non-serious without damaging our eyesight. Unless, of course, that is your ulterior motive.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

According to polemical literature, being meek and repentant is not enough to overcome being a strict Calvinist?

If I am not mistaken, strict Calvinists (such as Still Waters Revival Books, for example) are old school protestants that are opposed to dispensationalism (i.e. rapture theory) which is an historically more recent movement that began only in the nineteenth century.

I found this thread looking for the post on Brother Nathaniel being condemned by the ROCOR, but in any case in relation to Brother Nathaniel, I have my doubts about him, a big reason, he makes not clear mention of what monastery he is part of. That being said for some reason I do enjoy his videos, though I wonder if I will continue to watch them. It is not because I think he is an "antisemite" or self-hating Jew--he himself admits he was a Jew, but the self-hating theory has been made against him. I just doubt if he really is a monk for one. His videos have some good points and though they come off a bit strange, I think people are too quick to turn away from that sort of thing in being superficial and not able to look at the depth of a person. That being said a lot of what he said is stuff I already know and is nothing particularly informing. If I do not know the facts from the news or something he might mention, it is nothing suprising. I do think he does a good job of reminding us of of the Zionist control of things and I really do not want to get into an argument with people who think this is a conspiracy theory.

I also listen to Alex Jones, who I do not agree with on many issues, particularly his Americansit mindset and his libertarianism. The American founding has many problems in terms of freedom of religion and so forth. I will not get into that here, but libertarianism, appealing as it is, is self-contradicting. It is part of the Enlightenment mindset of a person having the liberty to believe what they want. I know that is putting it in a very simple manner, but to get into the depths of it, one would have to get into deeper stuff. Simply put the libertarian seems to say liberty as far as possible and as small a state as possible. While I am not a statist, I do think the libertarian idea of the state and people has its problems. I am big on Aristotle's idea of politics. Also I think why laws should not be excessive, they should outlaw immoral things. That is not to say every immoral thing. Adultery might be tolerated, and even prostitution. Augustine even argues for tolerating prostitution rather than outlawing it interestingly.

Anyway, Alex Jones actually teaches me something, even if I have to stomach his libertarianism and glorifying our Masonic founders. Brother Nathaniel is interesting and charming, but I really do not learn to much form him. So I do not detest him as some seem to do, but I do think there are problems and I would not give him money.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 02:00:16 PM by wainscottbl »

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life." --Gebre Menfes Kidus

I once said to my father, when I was a boy, 'Dad we need a third political party.' He said to me, 'I'll settle for a second.' --Ralph Nader, America's Cato

It just gets tricky. 95% of what I say isn't serious. But sometimes the purple gives the wrong idea, because I'm semi-serious. I really need to do a rainbow of about 12 different colors, depending on the intended seriousness/humor ratio of the post content. Mixed would work as well, for example...

I read that he's part of a schismatic sect (some sort of Russian Old Calenderist group) but unfortunately I can't site my sources.

You should be more critical in your thinking. Schism occurs when one leaves the Church. Leaving heretics does not constitute schism, because heretics are not part of the Church. Read canon 15 of the First-Second Council (861). It honors the Orthodox who forsake heretical leaders even before they are condemned. But the point I need to emphasize is that Ecumenism has been anathematized and condemned. Saint Paul tells us that heretics are self-condemned --Titus 3:10-11.

I read that he's part of a schismatic sect (some sort of Russian Old Calenderist group) but unfortunately I can't site my sources.

You should be more critical in your thinking. Schism occurs when one leaves the Church. Leaving heretics does not constitute schism, because heretics are not part of the Church. Read canon 15 of the First-Second Council (861). It honors the Orthodox who forsake heretical leaders even before they are condemned. But the point I need to emphasize is that Ecumenism has been anathematized and condemned. Saint Paul tells us that heretics are self-condemned --Titus 3:10-11.

Brother Nathaniel used to be with Abp Gregory of Colorado, whose history is complicated, but it involved being deposed more than once by different jurisdictions, ultimately leading to him setting up his own vagante jurisdiction. Br Nathaniel later joined ROCOR-MP, although I don't know if he is still with them. He was formerly deeply involved in debates about True Orthodoxy, although disproportionately concerned with gossip and rumors about various clergy rather than issues of faith. The obsession with the Jews came later and I think this is where he started seeing Putin as some anti-Western hero; around that time I think he joined ROCOR-MP.

Brother Nathaniel used to be with Abp Gregory of Colorado, whose history is complicated, but it involved being deposed more than once by different jurisdictions, ultimately leading to him setting up his own vagante jurisdiction. Br Nathaniel later joined ROCOR-MP, although I don't know if he is still with them. He was formerly deeply involved in debates about True Orthodoxy, although disproportionately concerned with gossip and rumors about various clergy rather than issues of faith. The obsession with the Jews came later and I think this is where he started seeing Putin as some anti-Western hero; around that time I think he joined ROCOR-MP.

The linked statement says that he does not represent the views of the church or belong to that diocese in the west. Two reasons suggest he belongs to ROCOR. First, why would ROCOR feel compelled to disagree with him in a statement if he was not a member of their church? Second, the statement says he does not belong to the western diocese- but what about any other diocese? He came from the east coast, after all.

Perhaps they are simply fed up with every Tom, Dick and Waynetta speculating that there is a link between them. For myself the gentleman concerned appears for all intents and purposes as a parody of an Orthodox monastic.

As I understand it, Nathaniel is a layman and last belonged to ROCOR. I could only speculate on Abp Kyrril's statement regarding Nathaniel having "no relation" to the Western American Diocese of ROCOR. He could mean that he has no official relation as a member of the clergy or as a registered monastic, as he appears to be, and is merely a layman. Or, he could mean that while he was received last into ROCOR, he is not regularly receiving the mysteries from, or confessing his sins to, or being guided by, any priest or confessor in ROCOR. According to the canons, if a person does not attend church for three consecutive weeks, this person has excommunicated himself unless the person could not attend due to sickness or some other adverse circumstance.

It would seem that if Nathaniel truly had "no relation" to ROCOR, then it perhaps be out of place for Abp Kyrril to call on him to refrain from posting on the Internet and to live a life of repentance. Whatever the status of Nathaniel in ROCOR, its seems that Abp Kyrril recognizes that Nathaniel at least believes that he himself is a member of ROCOR.

I think the content and information provided by Nathaniel has some merit, but it is troubling that it comes from a man falsely posing as a monk of the Orthodox Church. It is my opinion that he would do best following Abp Kyrril's advice, and that this material which is political in nature be presented instead by a layman who does not think of himself as more than a layman, and who does not claim to speak as an Orthodox Christian. If Nathaniel wants to be a monk, he should humble himself and become a monk. If he wants to be a political commentator, he should humble himself and pose simply as a political commentator.

Quote

Canon 80 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

In case any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else on the list of the Clergy, or any layman, without any graver necessity or any particular difficulty compelling him to absent himself from his own church for a very long time, fails to attend church on Sundays for three consecutive weeks, while living in the city, if he be a Cleric, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be removed from Communion.